Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul

Question

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?

(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?

(D) Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?

(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 211: Critical Reasoning 
 Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:   E-mail  |  RSS 
 For All QOTD Questions  Click Here

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The journalist concludes that "it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year." How does the journalist arrive at this conclusion?

Arnold Bergeron (AB) is a well-known businessman who has long been popular in the state. 
 AB has often  talked  about running for governor, but he has never actually run for governor. 
 According to recent news, AB has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy.

In other words, AB has taken a step that WOULD be necessary if he actually wanted to become a candidate. But does this necessarily imply that Bergeron will  very likely  be a candidate for governor this year?

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

In order to run for governor, a candidate would first have to submit a detailed list of his/her current financial holdings to the election commission. The requirement is that the candidate SUBMIT this information. The passage does NOT mention any requirements based on the CONTENTS of that financial information.

In other words, according to the passage, a potential candidate simply needs to  submit  the required information. It doesn't matter whether the candidate has  greater  financial holdings than the other potential candidates. Choice (A) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

We already know that AB has fulfilled the election commission's financial disclosure requirements. Even if there are other ways to fulfill those requirements, it still seems as though AB has taken the first step towards running for governor. The answer to choice (B) might provide interesting information, but it would not help us evaluate the journalists' argument or conclusion. Eliminate (B).

The passage tells us that the journalist has learned that AB has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy. Regardless of whether that knowledge came directly from the election commission or from a secondary or tertiary source makes little difference.

Sure, knowing whether the journalist got the information from an unreliable source could certainly affect the argument. But would we be able to determine the  reliability  of the source just by answering this question? For example, say that the answer to (C) were, "No, the information was obtained from the town council, which received its information directly from the election commission." Okay, we've answered the question, but do we have any grounds for questioning the accuracy of the information?

Certain answers to this question  could  impact the author's argument. But we are looking for the question whose answer would be "most useful", so let's see if we can do better.

As explained for choice (A), we are not aware of any requirements based on the details of a potential candidate's holdings. According to the passage, a potential candidate fulfills the election commission's financial disclosure requirements simply by submitting the required information. As far as we can tell, it makes no difference whether AB's financial holdings have increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Eliminate (D).

AB has taken a step that WOULD be necessary if he actually wanted to become a candidate. Based on that information, the journalist concludes that AB is  very likely  be a candidate for governor this year.

But what if AB has taken this same step before other previous gubernatorial elections? We know that AB has never run before, so if the answer to (E) is "Yes," then AB has, in the past, completed this step without subsequently running for governor.

In other words, if the answer is "Yes," then AB has a history of completing this step without actually running for governor. So, taking that step would not be evidence that AB is actually going to run. Since the journalist's argument is based solely on that piece of evidence, this would hurt the argument.

If, however, this is the first time that AB has taken this step, then it is stronger evidence that AB will actually run.

Answering this question would be much more useful than answering the question listed in choice (C), so (E) is the best answer.

KarishmaB · Answer

AB has been popular and talked about running for governor, but he has never run. 
AB has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy.

Conclusion: It is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

We know that AB has never run before. We have found out that he has fulfilled financial disclosure requirement for candidacy. (perhaps one of the necessary things for candidacy)
We are concluding that he must be running this year.

What will help us evaluate our conclusion? Many factors such as
- Did he fulfil other necessary requirements for candidacy too e.g. Filling the candidacy form, submitting proof of edu qualification etc?
- Is the same financial disclosure required for something else too? e.g. to buy land in the state, does one need to disclose finances similarly? (he could have taken the step to fulfil the requirement for something else)
- Does he often fulfil financial disclosure requirements but not go ahead with the elections? 
etc

Let's look at the options:

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

Whether some other potential candidate has more financial holdings than him is irrelevant for whether he will run or not.

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?

It doesn't matter whether there are other ways to fulfil the financial disclosure requirements. He has already fulfilled them in one possible way. 
Our matter of concern is whether there are other requirements he must fulfil. 
Try to answer the questions with a yes or a no.

Yes - submitting a list of holdings is the only way to fulfill the financial disclosure requirements
Ok. He has already submitted a list of holdings to fulfil these requirements. He has already satisfied this condition.

No - submitting a list of holdings is not the only way to fulfill the financial disclosure requirements. There are other way to do the same thing too. 
Ok. He has used this way - submitting a list of holdings. It's alright if the same thing can be done in other ways too. He has already satisfied this condition.

In either case, we can't evaluate whether he is running for governor this year or not.

(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?

Irrelevant. We have found the info and we must take that to be true. From where we found it is irrelevant.

(D) Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?

Irrelevant.

(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

Correct. Does he routinely fulfil financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before elections but chicken out later? If yes, then it is not likely that he will run this time. If he has never filed before, it looks like he is serious this time.

Answer (E)

egmat · Answer

SOLUTION

Passage analysis 
· Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, 
 o A famous businessman AB is popular in the state for a long time. 
· and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run.
 o He has previously mentioned about competing in the governor election. 
o But he has never actually contested in the election, 
· However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. 
 o Yet, we have come to know that AB has made a move that is required to be a candidate now- He has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement.
o He has submitted a detailed list of current financial assets to the election commission. 
· So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.
 o The conclusion is that it is likely that AB will contest for the governor spot this year. 
 
 Question stem analysis 
 
The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?
 This question asks us to evaluate the argument using a suitable piece of information. We should find out which new information will help us to decide whether the conclusion is likely true or not.

Prethinking  
To see if AB will compete for Governor this year, the basis of the author is that he made a move that is required to compete. But what if that move is required for some other purpose that AB is in need of? Then we cannot say he is likely competing due to the given reason. It could be for some other reason.

Evaluate statement – whether the move (fulfillment of financial disclosure) is required for some other reason?

if YES – it decreases our belief in the conclusion
if NO – it increases our belief in the conclusion
Another aspect we can take note of is that whether he has made the same move (disclosing financial holdings) before and not contested the election. If this has happened before, then we cannot be optimistic this time.

Evaluate statement – whether AB has made the same move before and not contested the election?

if YES – it decreases our belief in the conclusion
if NO – it increases our belief in the conclusion

Option Analysis

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?
 Whether there are other prospective candidates who are richer does not affect our conclusion. Hence this answer choice is irrelevant.

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements
 It is not necessary that submitting the list of holdings is the only way to fulfill the requirements. What we should have looked for is whether there are other purposes for submitting the list to the election commission. This answer is also incorrect

(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission
 The source of the information is not relevant to us. What we need to see is if AB disclosed his assets, whether it is an indication that he is competing in the elections.

(D) Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?
 The value of AB’s financial holdings is irrelevant. Hence this option is incorrect.

(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections? 
This option is in line with our prethinking. If he had disclosed his assets to the election commission earlier too and yet did not contest (we know for a fact that he has not contested till date), then we cannot consider the same action as an indicator that AB will contest this time. This is the correct answer.

krish · Answer

My choice is E. 

E questions the fact whether he has filled the Fin.disclosure before. If the answer is yes then the argument logic gets easily broken. 

Choice B tries to find whether there are any other requirement for candidancy. The answer to this question would provide us information not directly related to our flow of logic.

Dharmin · Answer

true it is between "B" and "E". 
I will pick "E" on this bcoz 

IMHO, the conclusion "it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year" has nothing do whether bergeron has fulfill the election commissionâ€™s financial disclosure requirements or not. The pretty basic issue is if mr. bergeron had also previously fulfilled the candadicy financial requirement but not ran for gubernatorial elections then he might repeat the same again.

whats the OA ?

Dharmin

sdanquah · Answer

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year. 

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalistâ€™s argument? 

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron? 
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commissionâ€™s financial disclosure requirements?  this does not link us to the conclusion as it deos not tell us if it is the only requrement one needs to run in an election. Anwer to this question will not help us much 
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission? 
D. Have Bergeronâ€™s financial holdings increased in value in recent years? 
 E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?  .  This to me is more linked to the stem and carefluuy adressess the scope shift in this argument. Anwering this question will help us evaluate the jornalist argument in regards to Bergeons political asprirations 
E is the best answer to this

ywilfred · Answer

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron? 
Yes/No doesn't give us a clue if Bergeron is goign to run for governor this year

B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commissionâ€™s financial disclosure requirements? 
Yes/No again doesn't give us any clues. And anyway, we are told he has fulfilled the eletcion commison's financial disclosure requirements.

C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission? 
This might have an imact -- on hold

D. Have Bergeronâ€™s financial holdings increased in value in recent years? 
Yes/No doesn't tell us if he is going to run for govenor. It only tells us if he is getting richer or poorer.

E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?
This might have an impact too. If he had previously fufilled the requirements and not run for office, there's a possibility he is doing the same this time round (that is, not running)

I'll pick E. C only tells us the information is correct , Bergeron might still run or not run and nothing suggests he is or isn't going to.

sk818020 · Answer

The answer is E.

The argument summarized:

A popular business man has talked about running for governor, but has never run.

The businessman recently did something you have to do to run for governor.

Thus, it is very likely he will run for governor.

The question we would want answered before we could confirm the journalist's reasoning is correct is; is the only reason that he would file these form is to run for governor? If yes, then we can agree with the journalist. If there are other reasons he would file the forms, then we would have to disagree with the journalist.

B is wrong because it does exactly opposite of what we want to know. B would let us know if there are other ways to become a candidate. This is irrelevant because he has filed the forms. What we need to know is if the only reason for filing these forms is to run for governor.

E is the right question. If, in the past, he has filed the form, then, based on the passage, he filed the form and didn't run for governor. This would lead us to conclude that he has other reasons to file the forms other than running for governor. If he hasn't filed the forms in the past, then we would be more inclined to agree with the journalist that he is doing so now to run. Either way, the answer to this question lets us evaluate the journalist's claims.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Jared

Testluv · Answer

Fantastic reasoning!

This is called a relevant information question. One strategy for dealing with this question type is to treat it as hybrid strengthen/weaken: the right answer will be something where, if it goes one way, it will strengthen the argument and, if it goes the other way, it will weaken the argument. Let's apply it to choice E:

If he has fulfilled this necessary condition in the past, then the fact that he did so this time also is no longer a good reason for predicting that he will run (since he didn't run in the past), and the argument is weakened. On the other hand, if he hasn't fulfilled this condition in the past, then the fact that he has done so this time stands as a good (but not sufficient!) reason for predicting that he will run this time, and the argument is strengthened. Thus, knowing the answer to this question would be helpful in evaluating the argument.

Let's consider choice B. Remember, we already know from the passage that he HAS in fact fulfilled financial disclosure requriements (by submitting a list of his financial holdings). If he's already fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements, does it really matter whether there may have been other ways for him to do so?

venmic · Answer

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?

C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?

D. Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?

E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

GMATNinja, I have a question. I was slightly confused about Answer B, and if B was to be worded as follows:

B. Is submitting a list of holding the only way to register oneself to be a candidate for governor?

Then will it possible that B is the answer?

I am trying to make myself understand the argument better.

Thanks for your time

GMATPill · Answer

venmic,

(A) is not relevant because the information does not lead us in one way or the other towards supporting the argument if it were True vs False.

"Financial disclosure" somehow linked to "running for governor".

This is an "evaluate" question. The key to these types of questions is that the answer choices have 2 states. One state should strengthen the argument, the other should weaken it.

We have a gap in the link between the 2 topics stated above.

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

The level of financial holdings (whether greater or less than Bergeron) is not relevant to linking the 2 topics above - "financial disclosure" and "running for governor". There is absolutely no link so (A) is irrelevant.

(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

We know that Bergeron NEVER ran for governor before. So what are the 2 possible states in this answer choice?

If YES, Bergeron DID indeed fulfill financial disclosure requirements in prior elections...yet he NEVER ran and was never a candidate.
If NO, Bergeron did NOT fulfill financial disclosure requirements in prior elections...and yes he never ran in the past and was never a candidate.

(E) brings in the possibility that in the "YES" case there is evidence in the past that Bergeron DID have financial disclosure. Well in the passage, it's possible that Bergeron fulfilled financial disclosure this time around but might not run for governor, as was the case in the past. THis WEAKENS the argument.

In the other case, we do not interfere and the argument that Bergeron will actually run for governor this time around because he fulfilled financial disclosure is actually strengthened because we don't have a case that goes against it.

Because of the 2 scenarios that play out with answer choice (E), (E) helps us better evaluate the argument and decide whether it is a valid argument or an invalid one.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The facts of the argument are: Arnold has been popular; He has talked about running for governor; He has fulfilled financial disclosure requirement (this year). 
Based on these facts the argument concludes that Arnold is very likely to be a candidate for governor this year.

We need an answer choice that will help us evaluate the conclusion. 
The inconsistency lies between Arnold fulfilling disclosure requirement and his being very likely to be candidate for governor this year.  We do not know whether Arnold fulfilled the requirement in the previous years ! 
In fact if we come to know that he had fulfilled the disclosure requirements in the previous years, then it will be obvious that he is no less likely to be a candidate. On the other hand if we find that he did not fulfill the requirement in the previous years he is more likely to be a candidate. E is therefore the correct answer.

Whether "submitting a detailed list of holdings is the ONLY way to fulfill the financial disclosure requirement" is irrelevant because we know that he has in fact fulfilled the requirement! And evaluating this piece of information has no consequence to the conclusion of the argument!

Ajeeth Peo
Verbal Instructor

gmatexam439 · Answer

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron? - Anybody else is out of scope 
B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements? - Even if there is any other way still the financial disclosure requirement has been completed. 
C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission? - Out of scope 
D. Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years? - Out of scope 
E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections? - Correct. If he had fulfilled this requirement in previous elections as well then it would cast doubt on the appearance of Arnold as a candidate.

hongg7 · Answer

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

A. Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?

B. Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?

C. Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?

D. Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?

E. Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?

GMATNinja, I have a question. I was slightly confused about Answer B, and if B was to be worded as follows:

B. Is submitting a list of holding the only way to register oneself to be a candidate for governor?

Then will it possible that B is the answer?

I am trying to make myself understand the argument better.

Thanks for your time

GMATNinja · Answer

I advise against changing answer choices to understand the argument. We can (and should!) comprehend the argument without looking at any of the answer choices. In this case, recall this portion of the passage:

We already know that AB has fulfilled one requirement for candidacy. This is not open to question. And the question is not asking us to evaluate whether AB has fulfilled any other requirements for candidacy, financial or otherwise.

The author's conclusion is, "it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year," so what we're trying to figure out is  whether AB will actually follow through with becoming a candidate .

I hope this helps!

venkivety · Answer

by employing a "yes" and "no" strategy to the choices has to strengthen and/or breakdown the conclusion in the EVALUATE questions.

By employing the strategy to the choices A,B,C,D. 
the choices doesn't say anything about conclusion and hence irrelavant.

whereas employing YES to choice E--> will weaken the conclusion
No---> will strengthen the conclusion.
hence the correct answer

peanuts · Answer

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popular in the state, and he has often talked about running for governor, but he has never run. However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission. So, it is very likely that Bergeron will be a candidate for governor this year.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the journalist's argument?

The argument assumes a link between submitting list of financial holdings and candidacy for governor. So to evaluate this argument, we should have the information about whether in the past, this business man had made any list submission

(A) Has anybody else who has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for the upcoming election reported greater financial holdings than Bergeron?  Other with higher financial holding than Gergeron is not what we care about

(B) Is submitting a list of holdings the only way to fulfill the election commission's financial disclosure requirements?  if answer to this question is yes, then it is a required action if the businessman really want to go for governor. If he doesn't want, than he may submit the list for some other reason. In the end, yes answer doesn't offer a clear cut conclusion about the link

(C) Did the information recently obtained by the journalists come directly from the election commission?  We don't care about the origin of the information

(D) Have Bergeron's financial holdings increased in value in recent years?  we don't care about whether the holding increases or not

(E) Had Bergeron also fulfilled the financial disclosure requirements for candidacy before any previous gubernatorial elections?  Yes. If yes, then the submission of the list means nothing. Maybe he just submitted for other reason. It just so happens that the submission is close to the time of considering a candidacy for governor. If the answer is no, then the submission is a good sign that Bergeron will run for the position

Vishalcv · Answer

I don’t get it. How can it be E when the passage states “ by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission” . What if he had fulfilled it before but hadn’t submitted it to the commission, but this time he has submitted?

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

mSKR · Answer

However, we have just learned that Bergeron has fulfilled the financial disclosure requirement for candidacy by submitting a detailed list of his current financial holdings to the election commission

1.) this premise is part of argument. So take it true as it is. 
It means with this statement he has fulfilled the requirements ( by submitting )

2.) D says: has he fulfilled before? 
If No then it indicates this time also he may not run in elections
If Yes then it indicates this time he may run in elections

So E is clear winner.
On a side note, Submitting is one way of fulfilling . Even if there are other ways, it doesn't matter to our argument.

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Journalist: Well-known businessman Arnold Bergeron has long been popul

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards